ABC 7 Denver 1552 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 True. But in essence The CW and it's programming wouldn't change, just a different identity. You wouldn't even have to change the name! Is Time Warner going to sue CBS if they continue to use the 'W' in "The CW"? That would be a frivolous lawsuit. Call me crazy, but the identify is going to remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Yeah I don't see The CW going anywhere, neither will The Tribune-owned CW affiliates, but if Tribune actually gets at least either Time Warner's or CBS' stake in The CW (both 50%), or even just gets 20% of The CW non-CW stations (like WPHL, and KAUT) will be affiliating with The CW, and I think based on the fact that Tribune will get at least 20% of The CW from CBS primarily because if the fact that Tribune is actually co-producing some shows (like Arseno Hall, etc.) with CBS, the ownership stakes in the CW will be as follows: Time Warner (60%) CBS (40%) Tribune (10%) and The Tribune owned stations, not affiliated with The CW (KAUT, and WPHL) will affiliate with The CW, and because of Tribunes ownership stake in The CW, the Tribune owned-CW stations will be using CW (Channel Number) here's The Tribune owned CW stations using The CW (Channel Number), in addition Tribune will mandate The CW stations, without a News Department to have a News Department. The Station owned by Tribune, and affiliated with The CW will be identifying as follows: KTLA: Los Angeles' CW/ KTLA News KIAH: CW 39/ CW 39 News KDAF: CW 33/ CW 33 News KAUT: CW 43/ NewsChannel 4 on CW 43 KPLR: CW 11/ CW 11 News ( potentially ABC 2 News on CW 11, if ABC leaves KDNL for KTVI) WPIX: CW 11/ CW 11 News WPHL: Philadelphia's CW 17/ Philadelphia's CW 17 News at 10 WSFL: South Florida's CW/ CW News at 10 WNOL: New Orleans' CW 38/ WGNO News on New Orleans' CW 38 WICW: Indiana's CW/ Fox 59 News at 7 on The CW. All of this will be like the way it was from 1995-2006 except that the station branding is CW (Channel Number) or (State/City Name)'s CW, instead of WB (Channel Number), or (City/State Name)'s WB the reason why I left WGN out is because they just go by "WGN 9" instead of "CW 9" or "Chicago's CW). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 True. But in essence The CW and it's programming wouldn't change, just a different identity. right like if CBS decides to sell The CW to Tribune as an reward for co-producing shows with CBS, then The CW would become The WB, and you're right same programing, etc. just that "The CW" becomes "The WB" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 KPLR: CW 11/ CW 11 News ( potentially ABC 2 News on CW 11, if ABC leaves KDNL for KTVI) As I explained in the other thread there is zero chance ABC ends up on KTVI. right like if CBS decides to sell The CW to Tribune as an reward for co-producing shows with CBS, then The CW would become The WB, and you're right same programing, etc. just that "The CW" becomes "The WB" Because they have to rebrand? Again, UPN didn't rebrand when Chris-Craft/UTV sold their stake. There is no reason to think the CW wouldn't follow the same path in the unlikely event CBS or T-W sells their stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ns8401 846 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 True. But in essence The CW and it's programming wouldn't change, just a different identity. Not when they are beginning to get some minor traction. It would be stupid to go to the WB name again, it was even less known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Not when they are beginning to get some minor traction. It would be stupid to go to the WB name again, it was even less known. true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 As I explained in the other thread there is zero chance ABC ends up on KTVI.Because they have to rebrand? Again, UPN didn't rebrand when Chris-Craft/UTV sold their stake. There is no reason to think the CW wouldn't follow the same path in the unlikely event CBS or T-W sells their stake. well then where will ABC move to? Because KDNL is one of the weakest ABC stations in the country, the only reason why UPN didn't rebrand when Chris-Craft sold their stake in UPN, was because that Viacom, acquired UPN, and since how Viacom owned Paramount at the time, they didn't rebrand UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewsMaster 226 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 well then where will ABC move to? Because KDNL is one of the weakest ABC stations in the country, the only reason why UPN didn't rebrand when Chris-Craft sold their stake in UPN, was because that Viacom, acquired UPN, and since how Viacom owned Paramount at the time, they didn't rebrand UPN Don't expect it to happen. KDNL's current affiliation agreement with ABC isn't up until August of 2015, and even then, considering the number of ABC affiliates that the Bozos of Baltimore have, they will not wait long to sign a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 well then where will ABC move to? Because KDNL is one of the weakest ABC stations in the country, the only reason why UPN didn't rebrand when Chris-Craft sold their stake in UPN, was because that Viacom, acquired UPN, and since how Viacom owned Paramount at the time, they didn't rebrand UPN ABC won't move from KDNL. What do you think the "U" in UPN stood for? I'll give you a hint, Chris-Craft's TV subsidiary was called United Television. You seem to think The CW would absolutely have to rebrand in the event of a hypothetical sale by either CBS or T-W of their respective shares because the "C" or "W" won't mean anything anymore. So, using your logic the "U" in UPN should have been lopped off or the network otherwise rebranded. That didn't happen. Viacom chose to keep the UPN brand intact even though the "U" didn't mean anything anymore to avoid brand confusion. It's the same reason The CW brand would remain intact even if one of the partners sold their share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PelicanGuy 117 Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 One would think The CW is safe on WNOL but now that Gannett has WWL and WUPL, I don't know... (Note: There is no 9 pm news on either station) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Don't expect it to happen. KDNL's current affiliation agreement with ABC isn't up until August of 2015, and even then, considering the number of ABC affiliates that the Bozos of Baltimore have, they will not wait long to sign a new one. I don't know about that one, if Ben Sherwood is looking at KDNL, and how they've been performing, I'm sorry but I'm not sure if KDNL will remain with ABC yeah they could remain with ABC, but I'm not confident that they will remain with ABC (referring to KDNL) because KDNL, is one of the weakest ABC affiliated stations in the country, if you look at the amount of news KDNL airs, even KNXV (another weak ABC station) produces more news than what KDNL produces, I'm sure that Sinclair will keep ABC on KDNL, but I'm probably going to have to guess that those executives at ABC, will make sure that KDNL produces more news than what they've been doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 One would think The CW is safe on WNOL but now that Gannett has WWL and WUPL, I don't know... (Note: There is no 9 pm news on either station) yeah I have a pretty good feeling that now that The Gannett's-Belo Merger is complete that they'll cut a deal with The CW, and probably stations like WUPL/New Orleans, and KTVD/Denver will affiliate with The CW, and that'll seal the fate of Tribune-owned CW stations dropping The CW, and will be going Independent, that will be my biggest fear is Gannett's WUPL, and KTVD taking The CW away from both WNOL, and KWGN, and that'll cause Tribune to yank The CW affiliation off of stations like WPIX,, and WGN when Tribunes affiliation deal with The CW expires in 2916, if you look at KWGN is one of Tribune's key CW affiliated stations, that if they go to KTVD, that will seal the deal that Tribune wouldn't renew it's affiliation agreement signed back in 2006 with The CW, yes Tribune seems to get along with CBS, and co-produces some shows, but if both KTVD, and WUPL take The CW affiliation away from WNOL, and KWGN I do not see The CW on any if the stations Tribune owns, beyond 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 You wouldn't even have to change the name! Is Time Warner going to sue CBS if they continue to use the 'W' in "The CW"? That would be a frivolous lawsuit. Call me crazy, but the identify is going to remain the same. Agreed. I absolutely hate the "CW" name, but if TimeWarner sold their stake, the name wouldn't change. Few know that the "Columbia" portion of CBS' original name, the Columbia Broadcasting System, came from Columbia Records, which owned the radio network (very) briefly in 1929. CBS later bought the record label and owned it for several decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Agreed. I absolutely hate the "CW" name, but if TimeWarner sold their stake, the name wouldn't change. Few know that the "Columbia" portion of CBS' original name, the Columbia Broadcasting System, came from Columbia Records, which owned the radio network (very) briefly in 1929. CBS later bought the record label and owned it for several decades. thats true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Agreed. I absolutely hate the "CW" name, but if TimeWarner sold their stake, the name wouldn't change. Few know that the "Columbia" portion of CBS' original name, the Columbia Broadcasting System, came from Columbia Records, which owned the radio network (very) briefly in 1929. CBS later bought the record label and owned it for several decades. Ask an average person what CBS stands for and they'll most likely tell you the "C" stands for "Central" as in "Central Broadcasting System". Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ask an average person what CBS stands for and they'll most likely tell you the "C" stands for "Central" as in "Central Broadcasting System". Just saying... but it doesn't the letter "C" in "CBS" stands for Columbia (referring to The Columbia Records, in which CBS owned Columbia Records for a long time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ask an average person what CBS stands for and they'll most likely tell you the "C" stands for "Central" as in "Central Broadcasting System". Just saying... It's actually a trick question, as CBS formally stands for nothing. Hasn't since 1973. Their legal name has been "CBS, Inc." and "CBS Corporation." On-air, CBS used the term "Columbia Broadcasting System" up until 1995, when the network was bought out by Westinghouse/Group W. But that was mostly out of sentimental reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 It's actually a trick question, as CBS formally stands for nothing. Hasn't since 1973. It's just known as "CBS, Inc." and "CBS Corporation." Legally yes but they had come from somewhere Just messing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A3N 996 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Legally yes but they had come from somewhere Just messing with you. Up until 7 or 8 years ago, I had no idea what CBS stood for or had stood for- and never in a million years would I have guessed Columbia Broadcasting System. Sadly, most people nowadays will never know, nor care about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Heller 1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Up until 7 or 8 years ago, I had no idea what CBS stood for or had stood for- and never in a million years would I have guessed Columbia Broadcasting System. Sadly, most people nowadays will never know, nor care about that. that's true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry 718 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 As I explained in the other thread there is zero chance ABC ends up on KTVI. Sinclair has so many ABC affilliates, Disney wouldn't dare urinate them off. They will take a station like KDNL, which has a pretty good OTA signal in order to keep the rest of the ABC affiliates in the fold. Especially stations like KOMO, WSYX and WJLA. (WSYX gets big ratings for Ohio State and college sports.) Don't expect it to happen. KDNL's current affiliation agreement with ABC isn't up until August of 2015, and even then, considering the number of ABC affiliates that the Bozos of Baltimore have, they will not wait long to sign a new one. I repeat, KDNL has a pretty good signal. That's at least something to build from. Up until 7 or 8 years ago, I had no idea what CBS stood for or had stood for- and never in a million years would I have guessed Columbia Broadcasting System. Sadly, most people nowadays will never know, nor care about that. I always knew that. What I didn't know was the significance of the name "Columbia". I didn't realize it was a literary way of saying "America" (Columbia means Columbus' Nation or something along those lines) until very recently. People with a conservative bent know it by it's perjorative name: C-BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewsFan 1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 WPHL: Philadelphia's CW 17/ Philadelphia's CW 17 News at 10 Well, WPVI produces WPHL's 10pm News, so it should be Action News at 10pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I always knew that. What I didn't know was the significance of the name "Columbia". I didn't realize it was a literary way of saying "America" (Columbia means Columbus' Nation or something along those lines) until very recently. If you look closely, the original rendering of Columbia Pictures' "torch lady" had her holding an American flag. The torch lady was intended to be a personification of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Doesn't KDNL run the ABC schedule pretty much in pattern? Outside of the rare group-wide preemptions (S!nclair hasn't done anything even close to their infamous blackouts of "Saving Private Ryan" and the "Nightline" roll call of U.S. soldier casualties in Iraq), it is run pretty much like an ABC affiliate should be. It may be the bottom-dweller in the market, but S!nclair is honoring the contract as it is written. And let's at least play with the long-running speculation that Tribune would try to affiliate KPLR with ABC (KTVI is contracted with Fox until 2018, so fuggedaboutit). Isn't that a non-starter anyway because, IIRC, one owner can't really own two "big 4" network affiliates in a market the size of St. Louis? Tribune was lucky to make KTVI and KPLR an actual duopoly, and they really aren't in the business of operating license shells... Dreamcatcher only exists as a technical formality until their newspaper division is spun off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Doesn't KDNL run the ABC schedule pretty much in pattern? Outside of the rare group-wide preemptions (S!nclair hasn't done anything even close to their infamous blackouts of "Saving Private Ryan" and the "Nightline" roll call of U.S. soldier casualties in Iraq), it is run pretty much like an ABC affiliate should be. It may be the bottom-dweller in the market, but S!nclair is honoring the contract as it is written. And let's at least play with the long-running speculation that Tribune would try to affiliate KPLR with ABC (KTVI is contracted with Fox until 2018, so fuggedaboutit). Isn't that a non-starter anyway because, IIRC, one owner can't really own two "big 4" network affiliates in a market the size of St. Louis? Tribune was lucky to make KTVI and KPLR an actual duopoly, and they really aren't in the business of operating license shells... Dreamcatcher only exists as a technical formality until their newspaper division is spun off. Only if there is a TOC involved. In most cases this prohibts "big 4" duopolies from ever being established. However, if a duopoly legally exists and then an affiliation swap takes place a "big 4" duopoly could be created. As long as the duopoly remains under the control of the current owner it would be "legal." However, if they were to ever sell/transfer the stations they would then be required to come into compliance. See WTEV/WAWS for an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.